New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday reserved its judgement in anti-sikh riots case against former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar. The court listed the case for judgement on November 29.
This case is related to the killings of one Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh in the Saraswati Vihar area on November 1, 1984.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja reserved the judgement after hearing submissions of advocate Anil Sharma on behalf of Sajjan Kumar and additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat.
The court has directed Advocate Kamna Vohra, counsel for complainant to file written submissions within two days.
Advocate Anil Sharma, along with Advocate S A Hashmi and Anuj Sharma, appeared for Sajjan Kumar.
He submitted that Sajjan Kumar's name was not there from the very beginning; the law of foreign land is not applicable in this case and there was a delay of 16 years in naming Sajjan Kumar by the witness.
It was also submitted that a case in which Sajjan Kumar was convicted by the Delhi High Court is pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
Advocate Anil Sharma also referred to the case cited by the senior advocate HS Phoolka. He submitted that the law of the land will prevail even in extraordinary situations and not international law.
Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat in rebuttal submitted that the accused was not known to the victim. When she became aware of who is Sajjan Kumar, she named him in her statement.
On the last date, senior advocate HS Phoolka appeared for riot victims and argued that the police investigations were manipulated in the Sikh riots cases. The police investigation was tardy and to save the accused.
Also Read: Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict on Aligarh Muslim University minority status
It was argued that during riots the situation was extraordinary. Therefore, these cases have to be dealt with in this context.
During the arguments, senior advocate HS Phoolka referred to the judgement of the Delhi High Court and submitted that it was not an isolated case, it was a part of a bigger massacre, and it is a part of genocide.
It was further argued that, as per official figures, 2700 Sikhs were killed in Delhi in 1984. It was an ordinary situation.
Senior Advocate Phoolka had referred to the Delhi High Court judgement in the 1984 Delhi Cantt case, wherein the court called the riots a crime against humanity. It was also said that the objective of genocide is always targeting minorities. However, there was a delay.
The Supreme Court took it seriously that there was a delay and a SIT was constituted, he argued.
The senior advocate had also referred to the judgement delivered by foreign courts in the cases of genocide and crime against humanity. He also referred to the Geneva Convention.
It was also submitted that a charge sheet was prepared against Sajjan Kumar in 1992 but was not filed in the court. It shows that the police were trying to save Sajjan Kumar.
On November 1, 2023, the court had recorded the statement of Sajjan Kumar. He had denied all the charges levelled against him.
Initially, an FIR was registered at the Punjabi Bagh police station. Later on, this case was investigated by the Special Investigation Team constituted on the recommendation of Justice GP Mathur's committee and filed a charge sheet.
The committee had recommended the reopening of 114 cases. This case was one of them.
On December 16, 2021, the court framed charges against the accused, Sajjan Kumar for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149 IPC as well as the offences punishable under Section 302/308/323/395/397/427/436/440 read with Section 149 IPC.
It has been alleged by the SIT that the accused was leading the said mob and upon his instigation and abetment, the mob had burnt alive the above two persons and had also damaged, destroyed and looted their household articles and other property, burnt their house and inflicted severe injuries on the persons of their family members and relatives residing in their house.
It is claimed that during the course of the investigation, material witnesses of the case were traced out, and examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
The statements of the complainant under the above provision were recorded on November 23, 2016, during the course of this further investigation, in which she again narrated the above incident of looting, arson and murder of her husband and son by the mob armed with deadly weapons and she is also claimed to have deposed therein about the injuries suffered by her and the other victims of the case, including her sister in law who is stated to have subsequently expired.
She had also clarified, inter alia, in that statement that the photograph of the accused was seen by her in a magazine after around one and a half months.
—ANI